Chesapeake Bay Partner’s Response to the National Research Council’s Report

1. Chesapeake Bay Partner’s Response to the National Research Council’s Report Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee February 16, 2012

2. Response to NRC Report Purpose: Obtain PSC decisions on key challenges and recommendations and to finalize the CBP Partner suggested responses • BMP Effectiveness • Adaptive Management • Modeling Laboratory • Ongoing Function of Independent Evaluator

3. Documenting Actions Create transparent public record of the Partnership’s formal response to the NRC Report: • Finalize Key Challenges Document • Finalize CBP Partnership Suggested Responses to May 2011 NRC Report

4. Charge and Direction • EC Charge (Nov 2008): “that the Chesapeake Bay Partnership be evaluated by a nationally recognized independent science organization.” • Action Team convened at request and leadership of PSC • The PSC (May 2011) directed the CBP Partnership: • To provide a formal written response to all 25 of the NRC panel’s SBC conclusions • To recommend the next steps to the PSC on the ongoing function of the Independent Evaluator and do so in the context of their written and formal response to the NAS report.

5. Proposal for Ensuring Full Accountability of Best Practices and Technologies ImplementedRich Batiuk

6. Proposal to Partnership • Build a Partnership-wide BMP Verification Program working up through CBP Partnership • Workgroups GITs MB PSC • Address full array of practices across all sources • Agricultural lands, forest lands, wetlands, developed lands, on-site treatment systems, abandoned mine lands, wastewater dischargers, stream corridors, tidal shorelines • Factor in innovative approaches taken by jurisdictions, local municipalities, districts

7. Verification Framework • BMP verification principles • Source sector-specific verification protocols • BMP verification panel

8. Other Key Elements • Fully account for federal cost shared practices • Prevent double counting • Commitment to clean-up of historic data • Build in practice life spans

9. WQGIT review, approval of proposed process/schedule Completed 1/9/2012 PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP APPROACH Completed 2/9/2012 MB review, approval of proposed process/schedule Requested Today PSC review, approval of proposed process/schedule Workgroups with tracking, reporting and accountability systems, offset/trading program responsibilities work to resolve issues, refine existing systems Source sector-specific verification protocols developed by workgroups Work Underway Weave together initial workgroup products into preliminary draft BMP verification principles and protocols Late March 2012

10. PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP APPROACH (Con’t) Preliminary draft BMP verification principles and protocols April 2012 March*/April** 2012 WQGIT review/modification/ of preliminary draft BMP verification principles, and protocols Briefings for CAC, STAC, and LGAC*; review of draft BMP verification principles, protocols by the other GITs** May/June 2012 MB review/modification/approval to present proposed BMP verification principles, protocols to PSC Summer 2012 PSC review/modification/adoption of BMP verification principles, protocols for the Partnership PSC communication of the Partnership’s BMP Verification Program to partners/stakeholders through some formal agreement mechanism Fall 2012 Starting Fall 2012 BMP Verification Panel Reviews States’ Proposed Verification Programs

11. Proposed Schedule • Starting Fall/Winter 2012: jurisdictions present their proposed BMP verification programs to the Panel for review • 2013: Following CBP Partnership approval of their BMP verification program, jurisdictions can track, verify, report, and receive credit for the full array of cost shared and non-cost shared practices • 2014: Account for expanded verified practices, technologies when reporting on 2012-2013 milestones and developing 2014-2015 milestones

12. Requests for Decision • Requested Decision: PSC agreement to proceed forward with the process/schedule as modified and recommended by the MB • Requested Decision: PSC agreement to: 1) review, modify, and adopt the BMP verification program on behalf of the partnership and; 2) communicate adoption widely with stakeholders

13. Adaptive Management CarinBisland

14. Adaptive Management • Chesapeake Bay Program has been using adaptive management concepts for several years. • There has been a call to be more rigorous in applying adaptive management from several sources, including: • GAO • STAC • EO 13508 • NSF

15. PSC Decisions at May 2011 Meeting • ChesapeakeStat should be phased in as the Decision Support Framework to describe work across all CBP Goal Implementation Teams and to be used as a tool for adaptive management. • Phasing in the use of the decision support framework will begin with interested GITs (Habitat - SAV, WQ – Agriculture, Watersheds) and will use that process to form the basis for content in ChesapeakeStat. • The PSC also requested CBP staff identify case studies that may be used in a demonstration at the July 2011 EC meeting.

16. Adaptive Management Decisions sought from PSC on Adaptive Management: • Adopt the Management Board recommendations for Adaptive Management. • Assign GIT 6 with the responsibility for carrying out the Adaptive Management recommendations, relying on the Decision Framework. • Request GIT 6 provide a work plan and time line for completing the assigned Adaptive Management recommendations to the MB.

17. Modeling Laboratory Mark Bennett

18. MB Recommendations on Modeling Lab • Commit to proceeding forward with more in-depth evaluation of the recommendation for establishing a Chesapeake Bay Modeling Laboratory and other alternatives to achieve the recommendations of the NRC committee. • Establish an action team charged with responsibility for developing a more definitive set of implementation options. • Appoint action team members with well recognized expertise in modeling, monitoring data and management decision making in order to represent multiple perspectives.

19. MB Recommendations on Modeling Lab The action team’s charge would include: • Evaluation of other existing modeling laboratories and adaptive management programs that encompass modeling, addressing how they function and how applicable their structure and mandate is to the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership. • Consideration of the range of options for what would constitute a Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory, a virtual laboratory, or responsive program reorganization that is capable of carrying out the functions outlined by the NRC committee and addressing the series of existing STAC and the jurisdictions’ recommendations on modeling. • Development of options and recommendations for actual institutional sponsorship and how the laboratory would function for carrying out mandates. • Assessment of the possible range of financial investments and funding mechanisms required.

20. MB Recommendations on Modeling Lab • The action team would report back to the Management Board on its findings, options, and recommendations within nine months. In turn, the Management Board would then decide on what specific recommendations to put forward for deliberation and final decisions by the Principals’ Staff Committee.

21. Ongoing Function of the Independent Evaluator Jeff Horan

22. Ongoing Function of Independent Evaluator • Decisions sought on the Ongoing Function of the Independent Evaluator: • Adopt the Action Team recommendation for the ongoing function of the Independent Evaluator. • Assign GIT 6 with the lead responsibility, in coordination with CAC, STAC, and LGAC (based on LGAC interest), for completing the required analysis to establish an Independent Evaluator. • Request GIT 6 provide a work plan and time line for the MB that outlines the steps for completing the analysis work. The work plan and time line shall define a date by when the Independent Evaluator will be established.

23. PSC Decision on CBP Suggested Responses Documentation • Decision sought on the CBP Partner Suggested Responses to May 2011 NRC Report Document: • Adopt Key Challenges Document and CBP Partnership Suggested Responses to May 2011 NRC Report • Post on the Partnership’s web site along with the link to the NRC’s Report.